Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The United debarcle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I may seem that I defend airlines. I don't. It's just that, in this particular case, these parent screwed it up big time (starting for never buying a ticket for a pax that they intended and was required to be seated, before they even knew that an incident was going to happen) and the airline had the legal right to do what they did (again although enforcing the contract is not always the best move).

    Has anyone read "Moments of Truth" by Karlson? There seems to be a reason why this customer satisfaction strategy doesn't seem to be the most profitable these days.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      In my opinion, it is quite common sense and intuitive (and should be "survival instinct" too) that if you don't show to a flight the airline will try to sell this empty seat to another paying passenger, and that the way to show up is not to buy the ticket, is not to check in, but to have your boarding pass scanned at the door of the plane. That is, to let the airline know that you did board the plane.

      I will be perfectly fine with a system where the airline would never ever ever give your seat to someone else (so nobody needs to worry about showing that one showed for the flight), and the airline would never ever ever return you a cent of a purchased ticket. You purchased a seat in a flight and the seat will be there for you whether you use it or not.
      I'm actually perfectly fine with them assigning non-checked-in seats to standby passengers. But if it turns out that the person merely forgot (or neglected) to check in and is actually using the seat after all, the resolution has to be in favor of the passenger who had the seat to begin with. Standby is standby. You don't have any claim to any seat unless that seat is actually vacant.

      And if the airline lets a person over 24 months through the gate without a checked-in boarding pass, that is THEIR problem.

      I also think travelling with and checking in very young children is a grey area where the rules may not be clear to everyone. In a situation like this, you absolutely resolve it by kicking off the standby customer. And you would, intuitively, instinctively do this except for a certain...

      ...corporate pathology.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Why should that matter? It shouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter if the airlines didn't have carte blanche over the rule-making process. We live in a society built around legislative representation, but as passengers have no representation in the (non-safety-related) rule making process. It goes against everything we stand for, and at some point, I'm hoping this becomes obvious to us.
        i'm beginning to think evan is a communist--a proven failed form a government.

        what he doesn't get, no mater who or how hard it is attempted to be drilled into his head, is freedom of contract--that pesky little CONSTITUTIONAL right we americans all have. that pesky right prohibits big brother from interfering with contract rights except by use of police power which must be reasonable and necessary. this event dos not involve police power obviously.

        i wonder what evan would say in this circumstance (since he either has me on ignore or is intentionally ignoring my posts): you walk into a maserati dealer and special order a custom car. place your deposit, fail to read fine print etc etc. car comes in and dealer says, ok, bring in the remaining $130,000. you say, well hey, i changed my mind, so not only am i not going to pay the 130k, i want my deposit back!

        or, you walk off a beach wearing only a bathing suit. restaurant has a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes? no service." you walk in barefoot and chested and demand to be served. it is a beachfront restaurant after all. good luck.

        it all comes down to rules of contract. as others have said here before, if you don't like 'em, don't fly. no one has a RIGHT to fly.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
          i'm beginning to think evan is a communist--a proven failed form a government.

          what he doesn't get, no mater who or how hard it is attempted to be drilled into his head, is freedom of contract--that pesky little CONSTITUTIONAL right we americans all have. that pesky right prohibits big brother from interfering with contract rights except by use of police power which must be reasonable and necessary. this event dos not involve police power obviously.

          i wonder what evan would say in this circumstance (since he either has me on ignore or is intentionally ignoring my posts): you walk into a maserati dealer and special order a custom car. place your deposit, fail to read fine print etc etc. car comes in and dealer says, ok, bring in the remaining $130,000. you say, well hey, i changed my mind, so not only am i not going to pay the 130k, i want my deposit back!

          or, you walk off a beach wearing only a bathing suit. restaurant has a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes? no service." you walk in barefoot and chested and demand to be served. it is a beachfront restaurant after all. good luck.

          it all comes down to rules of contract. as others have said here before, if you don't like 'em, don't fly. no one has a RIGHT to fly.
          Are you sure you studied law? Laissez faire only goes so far, even in a failed capitalistic state like this one. There is something called 'unconscionability' and I think the airlines are routinely stepping over that line. Any part of a society is still bound by the ethical conventions of society, regardless of prolix contractual claims to the contrary. So why are violators not held accountable?

          Because there is also something called 'corruption' and it—not the form of government—is why states fail. As far as I know, China's doing pretty well these days (how much do we owe them again?). I think Boeing would agree with me.

          Relax Teevee, I'm not a commie. I just believe in social justice. Although I've rarely seen it in real life... Anyway, back to aviation...

          Comment


          • Somewhat peripheral to the discussion: I have a friend who flies Las Vegas to London on Virgin Atlantic. He buys three economy seats in his own name so he can stretch out during flights. Never had a problem.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
              Somewhat peripheral to the discussion: I have a friend who flies Las Vegas to London on Virgin Atlantic. He buys three economy seats in his own name so he can stretch out during flights. Never had a problem.
              How does he to check-in three times?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                Are you sure you studied law? Laissez faire only goes so far, even in a failed capitalistic state like this one. There is something called 'unconscionability' and I think the airlines are routinely stepping over that line. Any part of a society is still bound by the ethical conventions of society, regardless of prolix contractual claims to the contrary. So why are violators not held accountable?

                Because there is also something called 'corruption' and it—not the form of government—is why states fail. As far as I know, China's doing pretty well these days (how much do we owe them again?). I think Boeing would agree with me.

                Relax Teevee, I'm not a commie. I just believe in social justice. Although I've rarely seen it in real life... Anyway, back to aviation...
                what is unconscionable, the no refund, no change policies? good luck arguing that in a commercial context. have you ever been shopping for retail? i'm fairly certain you've bought things in stores that have a no refund no exchange policy. go into your local corner store and buy a soda. pay for it and walk out. go back the next day and say you want your money back. go into a restaurant and order a BLT. when the bring it to your table, simply say, ya know what? i'd rather have a burger.

                i hear what you're saying. to airlines, ticket sales are heads i win tails you lose. but i'm fairly certain no court will ever declare a COC unconscionable,

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Relax Teevee, I'm not a commie. I just believe in social justice.
                  A most commendable position. I can't help but think, however, that the airlines are far from the best example of social INjustice. In fact, to use your own words, there is far more unconscionable stuff going on out there than any airline has ever considered.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    what is unconscionable, the no refund, no change policies? good luck arguing that in a commercial context. have you ever been shopping for retail? i'm fairly certain you've bought things in stores that have a no refund no exchange policy. go into your local corner store and buy a soda. pay for it and walk out. go back the next day and say you want your money back. go into a restaurant and order a BLT. when the bring it to your table, simply say, ya know what? i'd rather have a burger.

                    i hear what you're saying. to airlines, ticket sales are heads i win tails you lose. but i'm fairly certain no court will ever declare a COC unconscionable,
                    Three things: The extreme onesidedness of these contracts; the fact they they are contracts of adhesion (yes, you DO have to fly and now, thanks to the Justice Dept approval of these market-cornering mega-mergers, on many routes you DO have to fly with them); the terms and conditions that violate the very essence of a fair exchange of value (such as the exchange of money for a seat that can be subsequently taken away from you due to 'overselling')

                    I think I could win that case in an environment free of corruption. It's really just an environmental problem...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      A most commendable position. I can't help but think, however, that the airlines are far from the best example of social INjustice. In fact, to use your own words, there is far more unconscionable stuff going on out there than any airline has ever considered.
                      How many involve a contract that is enforced by US law?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        How many involve a contract that is enforced by US law?
                        Oh, I don't know, probably seven. Maybe even eight. Have you tried dealing with the healthcare industry? Insurance? Employment disputes? Or even municipal government? They all make DL and UA combined look like a tiny, fluffy kitten, believe you me.

                        Comment


                        • ATLCrew,

                          I understand and agree with your point but...
                          1. This is an aviation forum, so the fact that other entities do worse things than airlines isn't terribly relevant.

                          2. No number of wrongs makes a right.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • Two rights don't make a wrong, but three make a left.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • Only if they add to between 181 and 359 degrees!
                              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                              Eric Law

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                Two rights don't make a wrong, but three make a left.
                                And after five, you're just going in circles, which is I think more appropriate to this thread.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X